(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "An aerodynamic assessment of various missile configuration concepts"

NASA Icchiiiml Memorandum 84651 



(NASA) ib p ac AUJ/rtF AOI ^i»^^ "»' 



Na3-^2I50 



UncldS 
GJ/ti^ 03368 



AN AERODYNAMIC ASSESSMENT OF VARIOUS 
MISSILE CONFIGURATION CONCEPTS 



M. Leroy Spearman 



.--ittts; 




MARCH 1983 



fWNSA 

! ;p(it.i' AdmnisM.ition 
Langley Rosoarch Center 



AN AERODYNAMIC ASSESSMENT OF VARIOUS 
MISSILE CONFIGURATION CONCEPTS 

By 

M. Leroy Spearman 

NASA Langley Research Center 

Hampton, Virginia 

SUMMARY 

A review of investigations for many missile configurations coupled with numerous 
possible mission requirements indicates that some fundamental considerations can lead 
to definite areas of missile/mission compatibility. For example, a wingless missile 
or a missile with relatively small wings may take advantage of low minimum drag and 
accomplish missions where fast fly-out time is important. Such missiles, however, 
are generally found to be satisfactory from a maneuverability standpoint only under 
conditions of relatively low altitude and/or high speed, or when nearly ballistic 
fly-out paths can be used against essentially non-manuevering targets. 

For high maneuverability, an efficient lifting surface is beneficial together 
with linear stability characteristics and high control effectiveness. It has been 
found that these criteria can be met with various design arrangements that may employ 
aft tail, wing, or canard controls and that, through careful design, each of these 
control types can result in desirably low hinge-moment characteristics. 

Wing control missiles may produce erratic aerodynamic behavior, particularly at 
angle of attack, because of flow field effects induced over the tail. However, 
through careful design, wing control missiles may provide adequate maneuverability at 
relatively low angles of attack for some missions while offering potential advantages 
related to seekers, air inlets, and induced flow fields. 

Cruise missile configurations vary somewhat in detail but the dominant factor is 
an aerodynamically efficient design that is commensurate with the required weight and 
the desired range. 

INTRODUCTION 

Many tactical and strategic missions can be accomplished through the use of 
aerodynamic missile systems. These varied missions may require missile systems that 
operate as surface-to-air, surface-to-surface, air-to-air, and air-to-surface, 
including both the short-range tactical systems and long-range cruise strategic 
missile systems. A seemingly endless variety of missile configuration concepts are 
possible for use in meeting the requirements for various missions. It is the purpose 
of this paper to discuss, from an aerodynamic point of view, various missile configura- 
tion concepts with a view toward determining the most suitable geometric arrangements 
for the different mission applications. Many new missile systems are under study and 



the overall objective of current NASA research programs Is to detertiiine means whereby 
missile performance might be improved in terms of maneuverability, aerodynamic 
efficiency, aerodynamic range, and design simplicity. Aerodynamic systems have 
received the most attention primarily because of the potential for increased relia- 
bility and the probability of lower cost of the less sophisticated aerodynamic concepts. 

NASA studies have included foreign and domestic configurations in addition to 
general research models for the purpose of assessing the performance of the systems 
and acquiring knowledge for future application. Specific objectives of the studies 
are to provide a background of aerodynamic data that may be used in performance 
evaluation, in making various trade studies between differing systems, as an aid in 
defining maneuver envelopes, to aid In optimizing the aerodynamic characteristics, to 
improve the loads and structure evaluation techniques, and to provide for the con- 
tinued development and improvement of experimental and analytical missile study 
techniques. The approach has been through the use of both analytical and wind-tunnel 
studies from which such characteristics as the drag, stability, aerodynamic loads, 
control surface loads and moments, and the control effectiveness parameters are 
determined. 

Among the geometric variables that have been investigated are the afterbody shape, 
the forebody shape, the wing and tall planform and location, the use of various types 
of propulsion systems, and the use of various types of control systems including the 
?! 1 S^V.^^^Hu"^^ arrangements, and wing controls. Only some selected items will be 
included in this paper for discussion, although an extensive bibliography of reoorts 
covering some missile studies is included in references 1 to 57. ^'^^ '^®P°'^" 

j 

SYMBOLS \ 

A maximum body cross sectional area 

an instantaneous normal acceleration, g's 

i 
Cd,o drau oefficient at zero lift 

C|, hinge moment coefficient 

Cl lift coefficient J 

Cl^ lift curve slope, per deg | 

1 

Cm pitching moment coefficient 

Cm,- pitch control effectiveness, per deg 

Cfj normal force coefficient 

h altitude 

H.M. hinge moment 

M Mach number 
2 



R 


turn radius 


S 


wing area 


W 


weight 


Xac 


aerodynamic center location 


»s 


pitch control deflection 


tl 


anylo ol attack 



DISCUSSION 

Without defining any specific mission requirements, for the purpose of this 
paper it will be assumed that missions exist that cover ranqes from very short visual 
contact distances to ranges on the order of hundreds of miles. In altitude, it will 
be assumed that missions may extend from sea level (and sub-sea level) throughout 
the useable atmosphere to approximately 100,000 feet. Some types of missile missions 
are illustrated schematically in figure 1. The speed range considered extends from 
subsonic to supersonic Mach numbers of approximately b. It will be assumed that for 
some missions very little maneuvering requirements exist while for other missions 
exceedingly high maneuvering capability is required. As a point of reference, 
figure 2 may be used to illustrate, for the case of maneuvering missiles, thv 
interplay between maneuverability, speed, and turn radius for a constant altitude 
I or a constant g level, as the speed increases the turn radius increases, or as the 
g increases for the constant speed, the turn radius decreases. The Instantaneous g 
thi"??f^!w^•^^'f "^/^ru" ^?^®l;^li?^^ constant-amtude case and is defined as be^nq 
f ?n,t i.J'J.^^^''-^ •? tfie '"Issile divided by the lift required to sustain level 
flight for the missile. Aerodynamic factors of primary importance to the lift 
available are the configuration geometric features that affect the ability of the 
eJfprHinZ°''T V^^^* l^^ stability characteristics, and the control surface 
effectiveness, hactors of primary importance to the lift required are the wina 
loading (or weight), the velocity of the missile, and the altitude. ^ 

-Q-^.^«r.yations MaXejI.^ flafi_control missiles. - A comparison of 

he maximum ift producing capabil-itrSf^l rill W^di^'T^lbntrol m?ss?le 

ref. ^9) and a canard control missile (ref. 24) as a function of Mach number is shown 

in figure 3. Because of differences In the stability characteristics as wp? II ?n 

pUch-up ?"id" cy ha? ?in? < tL?!lll.t effectiveness as well as to a nonlinear 
The canarS con?ig.rat on cha™alr?s??« llll X^JI".*-'"' """^ "^f "^flections. 

at h,,h lifts ana'hlgh .ZZ^lZ fSTt^tV.ll^^tro.l'l ^^ ^Jl^^^'Jr""'^ 



1 1 



field in the vicinity of the canard surfaces as will be discussed later. A comparison 
of the instantaneous nonnal acceleration capability of the two missiles Is shown for a 
Mach number of 2.4 and an altitude of 30,000 feet and for an assumed constant weight. 
As a result of the differences in the aerodynamic characteristics of the two vehicles 
the trailing edge flap missile produced a g value slightly 1n excess of 6, whereas the 
canard control missile produced a g value of 16. It is interesting to note that this 
difference in maneuvering capability occurred although the canard missile, having a 
smaller wing area, did have a wing loading approximately twice that of the trailing 
edge flap control missile. In addition, the hinge moment values were reduced with the 
canard configuration by an order of magnitude. The same flap control missile is 
compared with an aft tail control missile in figure 4 where the pitching moment 
variation as a function of lift coefficient is shown for a Mach number of approximately 
3. Substantial improvements are indicated for the tail control missile in that the 
pitch-up characteristics have been eliminated and the usable control effectiveness 
range considerably extended. The effect of these aerodynamic Improvements on the 
effective missile operating envelopes for equal propulsion is shown in figure 5. The 
boundary of altitude versus range indicates the envelope in which the missile is 
considered Ifthal against a target that Is flying at a Mach number of 3 and has a 5 g 
capability at 35,000 feet and a 1 g capability at 80,000 feet. The target performs 
an evasive maneuver with a 10 second delay (shown on the left) and a 20 second 
delay (shown on the right) after missile launch. In both instances the effective 
operating envelope for the aft tail missile is considerably Improved over that for 
the trailing edge flap missile. For the twenty second delay the increase in altitude 
capability is especially significant. A point to remember concerning the evasive 
maneuver delay time is that, generally speaking, the longer the delay time, the 
greater the agility required for the missile in the end-game Intercept. 

^ .ObLe rvat ionsj:el.ated to aft tail control missiles. ~ Examples wherein the 
stability and^ control characteristics of aft tail nriiiTles were altered through 
configuration changes are shown in figures 6 and 7. For the two aft tail control 



missiles shown in figure 6 a change in wing planform from a trapezoid (unpublished) 

cnhc.f' -'i^-'^- ^^^ ':''"I*'^ ^" ^^' elimination of a pitch-dowh tendenc/and a 
substantial increase in the maximum lift capability at M = 4.6. The change in 
J^!?c L^5-*^^^ instance is apparently related to the stability contribution of the 
Wn:..H^l/'9"r^ ^i *^® linearity for two aft tall missiles with trapezoidal wings was 

ft innu^n?!lf .'nH^Jh^'^'J" ^'"^^ length-to-diameter ratio (reducing the foreSSd? 
lift inf uence . and through some rearrangement of the wing and tall locations Aoain 

^S^iSSri'fJJllJSbTnSyf"^ '""^'^^ ""^'^^'^- ^^-'- "-"'^^ conslJeJag^y'JS^^ovef "■ 

Observatioas.j:e1ated to canard c ontrol and aft tail control missiles - Some 
results from reference 52 a7S15iiflTlFFoliipa?i7i^^ ^iTro} and 

aft tail contro missiles. The longitudinal stability and control cha?acterfsti«fnJ 

numbers. For a C,, of 12 and a representative weight loading, W/A, of about 750 pounds 



per s(mare toet. fur example, u level tlight a„ of about 30 is «';<-'^i "«•;';'«[;«/'.. 
'altitude of about 30,000 feet at M ^ 2 and aUo at an altitude of about bO, 000 feet 
at M 4 A woll-desiyned canard-controlled missile provides a concept that utilizes 
a small positive control force (small surface area) and takes advant.u]'* "t a lon<) moment 
drill to produce the rotation moments. 

The longitudinal stability and control characteristitis for an aft-tail control 
missile are shown ir. fiyure 9 for various control deflections at M - 2 and 4. The 
control effectiveness at M 2 remains essentially constant with incroasintj control 
deflection and increasiny C-l or .x. Since a and iS are opposite, in this case, 
the local flow angle at the tail remains small. The control effectiveness again 
decreases with increasing M near <* = 0° due primarily to the decrease in tail 
lift curve slope. Some decrease in effectiveness occurs at M = 4 for an a range 
to about IQO probably due to a w1ng-wal<e effect on the tail. However, at higher angles 
of attack, as the tail moves below the wing wal<e and enters the high local dynamic 
pressure field generated by the compression side of Ihe wing, the tail effectiveness 
increases dramatically. These results indicate that, for a W/A of about 750 pounds 
per squar.'? feet, ap values in excess of 40 are potentially available at h = 30,000 
feet for 1^1 ■= 2 and at h -• 50,000 feet for M = 4. Generally speal<ing, the aft- 
tail control concept mal<es use of a relatively large, efficient lifting-control 
surface with a short moment arm to produce the rotation moments. 

The results for the canard-control concept and the aft-tail control concept 
indicate that both are capable of producing good aerodynamic maneuvering. The design 
choice between the two concepts may often be related to other factors such as 
inboard-profile arrangement or carriage and launch constraints. 

Some afterbody modifications. - A canard control missile with an exceptionally 
high TeT?th-to~diameter VdtioTT8.3), reported in reference 45, exhibited a severe 
pitch-up tendency due to the combined effects of the forebody lift and the canard 
surface lift. Such a tendency was characteristic of the Nike Ajax missile. Efforts 
to alleviate this type of instability have been explored through the use of an 
afterbody flaring or fin/ flare combinations. As shown in figure 10 the addition of a 
slight flare and aft fixed fins resulted in the elimination of the unstable pitching 
moment characteristic for a constant center of gravity location and resulted in a 
substantial increase in the usable lift range. The improved stability and maximum 
lift capability would be reflected in improved g capability and enlarged effective 
operating envelopes. 

Observations related to wings. - A comparison of some of the aerodynamic 
characteTTstlcs of a taTI control mi ssilo, with and without a wing (refs 33, 41, and 
67), is shown in figure 11. Two obvious features of the winged missile are the 
substantially higher lift curve slope throughout the Mach number range and the smaller 
variation in aerodynamic center location with Mach number. The differences in pitch 
control effectiveness are relatively insignificant. The instantaneous g capability 
for the winged missile with the aft tail control is shown in figure 12 as a function 
of Mach number of various altitudes and for an assumed loading W/A of 750 pounds per 
square feet. This particular missile indicates relatively high maneuverability in at 
least two regions of interest; one being the so-called dogfight missile region, 
where approximately 40 to 50 g's are indicated near an altitude of about 30,000 feet, 
and the other being at intercept altitudes above 70,000 feet at the higher Mach 
numbers where the missile still displays high g capability. An obvious feature for 
the wingless missile would be lower values of drag near zero lift, but this feature 
must be weighed against the increase in drag-due-to-lift for the case of maneuvering 



flight. The winyless missile should he capable, however. 1n those regions where 
near ballistic fly-out paths can be used and where fast fly-out time is Important. 
High g capability could be achieved at relatively low altitudes or at relatively high 
speed when significantly high dynamic pressure is experienced. 

Two other missile configurations (results unpublished) are Illustrated in 
tigure 13 and represent two extremes In wing-body geometric design. A large volume 
missile with a relatively small wing and tall control was found tu be highly maneuver- 
able for conditions of low altitude and high Mach number and presumably would be 
well suited for tactical surface-to-surface or antlshlpping roles. Another possible 
mission for such a design would be an antlshlpping role for extended ranges where 
added ifange could be acquired through the use of a high-altitude, essentially 
ballistic, flight path. Sufficient control power was found to be available so that 
alterations to such a fll9ht path could be made for the purpose of providing 
targeting accuracy greater than that available for pure ballistic flight. The 
configuration with the extrememly large wing represents an attempt to" provide high 
maneuvering capability at extremely high altitudes. Tests results indicated that t^e 
lift curve slope for this missile was approximately twice that of the winged missile 
snown in figure 11 with an increase in maneuvering capability particularly useful at 
extremely high altitudes provided the wing weight and drag Is tolerable. 

^ Observations related to wing control missiles. - Some results published In 
reference 57 are usefuTin demonstrating the characteristics of a wing control missile 
and In comparing these characteristics with a tail control concept (fig. 14). The 
configuration in reference 57 is essentially a Sparrow III with some results for the 
bosic design with wing deflection for control with a fixed aft tail and some results 
with tail deflection for control with the wing fixed. The pitch control effectiveness 
of the wing was considerably less than that for the tall and was considerably more 
non inear. The wing control, by its nature, does produce a given lift at a lower 
angle of attack than does the tail control although the accompanying drag Is 
considerably greater. All things considered, the wing control Is inferior to the 
tail control in producing trim lift and normal acceleration. Whereas both the wing 
control and the tail control were capable of producing roll, that produced by the 
wing was quite nonlinear with angle of attack and was also accompanied by an induced 
yaw. Both the wing and t '1 controls were capable of producing yaw although the wing 
was much less effective; y, Juced nonllnearlties including reversal in yaw; and 
produced erratic Induced roll. The underlying reason for the more erratic behavior of 
the wing control configuration is, of course, related to the flow field induced at the 
tail by the wing. 

Generally speaking, a fundamental difference between wing controls and aft tail 
controls (or canard controls) Is that the wing control produces a lift force near 
the center of gravity that provides more of a translating motion at relatively low 
angles of attack. Either aft or forward controls, on the other hand, produce a lift 
force at some distance from the center of gravity thus , roviding a rotational motion 
that tends to add more lifting force from Increasing angle of attack. The ability to 
maneuver sufficiently while still maintaining low angles of attack Is, of course, a 
desirable objective since there would be some potential advantages related to seeker 
systems, airbreathmg inlet efficiency, and induced flow field Interference effects. 

Some studies of missiles with relatively small wing controls (rpf. 43, for example) 
indicate a high g capability at low altitudes. Longitudinal aerodynamic characteristics 
for this concept are shown in figure 15 for various control deflections at M = 1.75 
and 2.50. This concept is an airbreather with foL- • Inlets In a cruciform arrangement 
and uses all-moving winqs for pitch and yaw control. The pitch-control effectiveness 



IS rolatlvely hioh at the lowest Mach nun.;, t.^ 

Mach number and Increasiny >.. The ^^J^^^^J ',? f/^ iJ^Jf r.sul^ for this configuration 
related to the cieometry o the winy. ^J^f ^f^'a W/A - 750 pounds pcT square feet, 
indicate that for M ■■ 1. 75 near je^^J^^^^' '^ '", ^'^ 10 at u - 4" and about 
sufficient lift can be developed to PJ^^^f '^" Jl,'^ Jesuit in a.^ values of about 1ft 

an = ^l «t ^\ f''^'^'^'"^^ ^1 licrrso 1n a^ n^^^^^ 
a! a - 40 and about 3H at '^ ^ ' '^ Vabout ? 7 and 5.4 for a ^- 4" and 9", 
reducer, the «„,, values tor Mj J-^^ Jo '^bou^/;^/,^ ^, ,bout 3.7 and 7.9 for 
respectively, lor M - <^.5 the a,, val es w u iu rL (ietermined partly on the 
ex = 40 and 90. The a va ues of 40 and ^^ "sod J^^J^" S\o ,,,3i,tain flow in the 

'£TlV\'"^l lT^\l^^l\TZ\^^Tr..Uc. but that th,s capaMlity 

deteriorates severely at high altitudes. 

The longitudinal aerodynamic cbaracteristic. for a higher aUHud^ ^ 

(refs. 19 and 23) are shown m tigu^^e 16 ^J^^^^f.^ Jf ^Jlet for ra ijet propulsion and 
This concept is also an a^^^breat^ with an amiu^^ tor !^ J • ^^ ^„,,,p^. 
with somewhat larger wing contro s than JJf^je empioyea on^n. ^^ ^qo. 

The results indicate good stabi ity and coit ol ^haracterisucs ^^^^ 

The air flow requirements for ^^^^ f ""^"^Jj, ^L'f", ''..Mjo' and 20°. With a W/A of 
maneuver potential for this concept ^^^ examined for a » ^ana ^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^ 

750 pounds per square feet at M ^ 4, the value f /rj^^J^^,^^ ^^^^.^ i,,,eased to about 
5?*S slS^^attftrd s 0? 4^o!rf^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ H^^^rT^l^^ sSifef 

greater^S^^ capability if used at lower altitudes. 

Other studies of a wing cent,.! missile wit^^^^^^^^ ^ -^-f 

(.ef. ^6) have indicated he capab 1 t^^ 9, Ibout 3 and ability to 

rerfrwef/aral?ifudls^rto fbiSt 70,000 feet against maneuvering targets. 

Hinxe-omenA.ctmcleriit^^^^^^^^^^ 
of the-contrcTl surfaces that 5«^«,,f f,_^JfoS^'speed^ran?e are^hown in figure 17. 
as a function of a and c in ^5^. ^"P^^^^Jiia^l cLr^^ mid or wing controls, and 
Such results have been obtained with forward^tan ^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^ 

aft-tail controls. Desirable characteristics ^na^nav_ torsional 

C. in the normal operating a range that ^[^J^Jjf,,^;;?;;^^" should result in 
moments required to actuate the controls. ^"J^^^^J^S^fXtially permit smaller. 

rsSSraL''pnn?t lT^7^irc'^T.yiir.l.tro^ in t..'e ,oca, flow field. 

inustrateTfn figure IS. 7f cruise missile ^= ""'If l^^J,, fHqht over a portion of 
required to -support its own we ght jn P»"^^ J^^^JJ^^f flghtarn functions of the 
Us mission. Such things ?^J!«,;"J^/?54,* nS't?ated is an anti-tank co..copt and. 
requirod mission. The «1 f ^ "J,^"^ JJ'f 1 is shown at a relative scale twice 
iLrorthrshor" r„d"S;gl:anS,.'concepts^' MtJouql; anti-tank missiles ma, not appear 



apprupriato to the cruise class of niissile. whon a typical mission of about 650Q feet 
range at an altitude of 3 to 6 feet is considered, it should bo apoarent that the 
cruise roquireiiient is quite demanding. Unpublished results for the anti-tank concept 
at M ^ O.b indicated a trimmed lift-tO'-dray ratio of about 3 which would permit 
relatively heavy weights to be supported with low thrust. This performance was 
obtained by making use of a large, high aspect ratio wing to produce the 11ft required 
to support the weight and to offset the drag of the blunt forebody. A small canard 
surface was used to offset the moment produced by the large wing. 

The short-range cruise-missHe concept makes use of a fairly largo volume body, 
a monoplanar trapezoidal wing,^ and trihedral tail. Unpublished results Indicate good 
aerodynamic characteristics with a geometric arrangement that provides for ease of 
storage and launch, and sufficient volume for the necessary internal systems to 
deliver warheads on the order of 1000 pounds for ranges of about 25 miles. 

The long-range cruise-missile concept (ref. 50) employs a more efficient swept, 
monoplanar wing and an increase in size, both of which contribute to longer range 
capability. Some results for a concept of this type are Illustrated in figure 19. 
These results indicate a high drag -rise Mach number of about 0.95 that Is achieved 
through careful attention to the component arrangement such that the transonic area 
distribution is essentially parabolic with the maximum cross-sectional area occurring 
at midbody length. Such an area distribution Is theoretically optimum for minimizing 
the transonic drag rise. In addition, because of an inherent positive value of Cm 
at zero lift, the results indicated that the pitching moment can be trimmed with 
6" " 0^ at a lift coefficient for which the lift-to-drag ratio was maximum. 
Consideration of these aerodynamic characteristics indicates that a concept of this 
type can deliver a warhead on the order of 2200 pounds for ranges of 100 to 200 miles. 

Hypersonic airbreathinj mis sne s. - For the past several years, tactical and 
strategic hypersd^nic TirVreathing missile concepts have been under study at Langley. 
These conceptual missile studies indicate that hypersonic airbreathing missiles have 
a unique potential for combining speed, range, and maneuverability in a relatively 
light-weight vehicle. These attributes, which are advantageous for both tactical 
and strategic missions, are achieved through the careful integration of the propulsion 
system with the airframe and the synergistic coupling of aerodynai 'c, propulsion, and 
structural disciplines. The evolution of tactical and strategic hypersonic missile 
concepts under study at Langley Is included in reference 66 and a drawing of one of 
the concepts is shown in figure 20. 

CONCLUDING REMARKS 

A review of many missile configuration investigations coupled with the numerous 
possible mission requirements indicates that some fundamental considerations can lead 
to definite areas of missile/mission compatibility that is more of a science than an 
art. For example, a wingless missile or a missile with relatively small wings may 
take advantage of low minimum drag and accomplish m1ss1onf> where fast fly-out time 1s 
important. Such missiles, however, are generally not satisfactory from a maneuver- 
ability standpoint except under conditions of relatively low altitude and/or high speed, 
or when nearly ballistic fly-out paths can be used against essentially non»maneuver1ng 
targets. 



Whon h1nh maneuverability is rrquirod at iuiy altitude ur for hi(jh altitude inte -■ 
ceutiS St ev sivo tamet.. an efficient lifting surface i. advi.nuiyeous toiiether with 
l?nerr^,tabirty character stits and high c.ntrol offectivenesf.. U has l^oen found that 
thSsrcTitera can be met with various do-,ign arrangements that may employ aft tail, 
i nci! or cam?d contro s. it ha. also been found that, through .-arefu des «jn, each 
01 the".) control types can result in desirably low hingeHiioiiient characteristics. 

Carefully designed wing control missiles may provide adequate maneuverability 
at relatively low angles of attack for some missions while offering potential 
advantages related to seekers, air inlets, and induced flow fields. 

Cruise missile configurations vary somewhat in detail but the domi'iant factor is 
an aerodynamically efficient design that is commensurate with the required weight and 
the desired range. 



...:J 



1. Spoarinan. M. Leroy: Aerodyriaiiiic Charactorlstics 1n Pitch of a Series of Cruclforiii- 
W1ii(j Mir.f.11e,. With Canard Controls at d Mach Nuiiiljor of ?.ni. NASA TN I)-H:J9, 1961. 
1961. (Suporsedosi NACA KM Lf)3J14). 

2. Spoariiian. M. Loroy: Component Icstr. to Determine the Aei^odynaiiil c; CharacterHtlcs 
of an All-Movable 70o Delta Canard-type Control In the Presence of a Dody at a 
Mach Number of 1.61. NACA RM L!)3I03, l%3. 

3. Spoarnian, M. Leroy: Effect of Large Deflections of a Canard Control and Deflections 
of a Wing-Tip Control on the Static-Stability and Induced-Roll Characteristics of 

a Cruciform Canard Missile at a Mach Number of 2.01. NACA RM L53K03, 1953. 

4. Spearman, M. Leroy; and Robinson, Ross B.: Aerodynamic Characteristics of a 
Cruciform-Wing Missile With Canard Control Surfaces and of Some Very Small Span 
Swing-body Missiles at a Mach Number of 1.41. NACA RM L54ini, 1954. 

5. Spearman, M. Leroy, and Driver, Cornelius: Wind-Tunnel Investigation at a Mach 
Number of 2.01 of the Aerodynamic Characteristics In Combined Pitch and Sideslip 
of Some Canard-Type Missiles Having Cruciform Wings and Canard Surfaces With 70° 
Delta Plan Forms. NACA RM L54F09, 1954. 

6. Robinson, Ross B.: Aerodynamic Characteristics of Missile Configurations With 
Wings of Low Aspect Ratio for Various Combinations of Forebodies, Afterbodies, 
and Nose Shapes for Combined Angles of Attack and Sideslip at a Mach Number of 
2.01. NACA TM L57D19, 1957. 

7. Robinson, Ross B.: Wind-Tunnel Investigation at a Mach Number of 2.01 of the 
Aerodynamic Characteristics in Combined Angles of Attack and Sideslip of Several 
Hypersonic Missile Configurations With Various Canard Controls. NACA RM L58A21, 
1958. 

8. Katzen, Elliott D.; and Jorgensen, Leland H.: Aerodynamics of Missiles 
Employing Wings of Mery Low Aspect Ratio. NACA RM A55L13b, 1956. 

9. Foster, Gerald V.: Sideslip Characteristics at Various Angles of Attack for 
Several Hypersonic Missile Configurations With Canard Controls at a Mach Number 
of 2.01. NASA TM X~134, 1959. 

10. Stone, David G.: Maneuver Performance of Interceptor Missiles. NACA TM L58E02, 
1958. 

11. Spearman, M. Leroy; and Robinson, Ross B. : Longitudinal Stability and Control 
Characteristics at Mach Numbers of 2.01, 4.65, and 6.8 of Two Hypersonic Missile 
Configurations, One Having Low-Aspect-Ratio Cruciform Wings With Tral ling-Edge 
Flaps" and One Having a Flared Afterbody and All-Movable Controls. NASA TM X-46, 
1959. 

12. Robinson, Ross B.; and Bernot, Peter T.: Aerodynamic Characteristics at a Mach 
Number of 6.8 of Two Hypersonic Missile Configurations, One With Low-Aspect-Ratio 
Cruciform Fins and Trailing-Ldge Flaps and One With a Flared Afterbody and All- 
Movable Controls. NACA RM L58D24, 1958. 

10 



13. Churclu i]miy^ I).; and Kirkldiid, Ida M.: Static Ae^rodynainic Characteristics of 
Sovoral Hypersonic Missile-and-Control Con figurations at a Mach Number of 4.GLi. 
NASA TM X-1H7, ]%0. 

1^, kulrinsoru Uuss [].; and Spoariiian, fl. hroy; Aorodynaiiiic ChuracftTistics for 
Coiiil)ino(i Anglos ol Attack and sidosllp o1 a l(JW-Asp(»(,t-Katio Crucif oriii-Whuj 
Mlssiln ronflquratiun t;ni(i]oy1ni| Vtirious Canard and rrailintj-(Hl()o I lap ContrQlr» 
Mach Nuinher of l\()L NASA Mornoranduiii lU-^- SUt, l%l\. 

lb. Robinson, Ross B.; c?nd Foster, ntrald V,; Static lonyitudlnal Stability and 
Control Characteristics at a Mach Number of 2.01 of a Hypersonic Missile 
Conficjuration Having All-Muvable Winy and Tail Surfaces. NASA TM X-516, 196L 

16. Spearman^ M, Loroy; and Robinson, Ross R,: Lonyitudlnal Stability and Control 
Characteristics of a Winged and a flared Hypersonic Missile Configuration With 
Various Nose Shapes and Flare Modifications at a Mach Number of 2A)l. NASA 

TM X-693, 1%2. 

17. Corlett, William A.; and fuller, Dennis f.: Aerodynamic Characteristics at 
Mach L60, 2.00, and 2.50 of a Cruciform Missile Configuration With In-Line Tail 
Controls. NASA TM X»ni2, 1966. 

UL luller, Dennis E.; and Corlett, William A.: Supersonic Aerodynamic Characteristics 
of a Cruciform Missile Configuration With Low-Aspect-Ratio Wings and In-Line Tail 
Controls. NASA TM X-1025, 1964. 

19. Foster, Gerald V.; and Corlett, William A.: Aerodynamic Characteristics at Mach 
Numbers From 0.40 to 2.86 of a Missile Model Having All-Movable Wings and 
Interdigitated Tails. NASA TM X-11S4, 1965. 

20. Hayes, Clyde; and Fournier, Roger H.: Effect of Fin-Flare Combinations on the 
Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Body at Mach Numbers 1.61 and 2.20. NASA 

TN D-2623, 1965. 

21. Corlett, William A.; and Richardson, Celia S.; Effect of First-Stage Geometry 
on Aerodynamic Characteristics in Pitch of Two-Stage Rocket Vehicles From Mach 
1.57 to 2.86. NASA TN D-2709, 1965. 

22. Corlett, William A.: Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Maneuverable Missile With 
Cruciform Wings and In-Line Canard Surfaces at Mach Numbers From 0.50 to 4.63. 
NASA TM X-1309, 1966. 

23. Spearman, M. Leroy; and Corlett, William A.: Aerodynamic Characteristics at Mach 
Numbers of 3.95 and 4.63 for a Missile Model Having All- Movable Wings and 
Interdigitated Tails. NASA TM X-1332, 1967. 

24. Spearman, M. Leroy; and Corlett, William A.: Aerodynamic Characteristics at Mach 
Numbers from 1.50 to 4.63 of ^ Maneuverable Missile With In-Line Cruciform Wings 
and Canard Surfaces. NASA TM X-1352, 1967. 

25. Spearman, M. Leroy; and Corlett, William A.: Aerodynamic Characteristics of a 
Winged Cruciform Missile Configuration With Aft Tail Controls at Mach Numbers From 
l.()0 to 4.63. NASA TM X-1416, 1967. 

11 



26. Mayes. Clyde: Supersonic Aerodyr.....;ic CharacKTistlcs of a Model of an Alr-to- 
Ground Missile. NASA TM X-1491. 1%8. 

^^' o^/rV'";- '^^'!"'*' ';•• «•"? IMt-twrdson. Cella S.: AemlynaiiiJc (:iia»aaer1 sties at Mai h 

-su^facis*: ^'ASA'^x'l4o^I^s^''""'"''"'' '''■' ^''"'^"" '"^'•"' "•■"«'- -^'"^ ^^^^ ' 

2H. ^orlett. Wlllidiii A.: Aerodynamic Characteristics ot a Modified Missile Model With 

" af--IJ- ^^ of,a Modified -n^.odel^WUh 

4 63. NASA TM^.?85ri969 ^'"''^ '"'' ^'^^ ^'''^^°^'' '^ Ma?h L50 to 

32. Spearman, M. Leroy; and Trescot Charioc n u, . iwr ^ 

Static Aerodynamics of a Cruclforn. 2^.!n ni-i' m ' '.^'^^t^'"^^ •' "^''^'J ? 'anform on ti.e 
NASA TM X-1839ri969 ^'"^^^«"" Wing-Body Missile f'ji r,xh iVumbers up to 4.5.1. 

''• M^rve^able Mts'sfie^Suh^^'Scn-orm^g^Ua'til ^-^^^-'J^^ Characteristics of . 
Numbers from LBO to "leS. NAS^S S^IsGs! Jleg! ''' '''' '''''''' '' '^^^ 

''' Nosr?infig!;?aXns on"lhrKlL"5L'l^?^^^" f f^^ '''^^'^ '' ^^--^ Meeker- 
at a Mach Number 2f Tqq NACA Rfi JS'us^fgBs''^''^" °^ ' Canard-Type Missile 

''• -X^':;o&?c^crac^'J?s^tl2s o?TfiselatT^^^ S^ 'T ^^^^^ -^ ^^^P^ 
at Angle of Attack. NACA RM USlisa! m3. ^^ '""* ' Wing-Fuselage Combination 

''• ??-L??ri;a?of ;!?;jl?^^^^^^^^ Rudeen S.: Estimation 

Boundary Layer. NASA TM X-logoT 1969 Supersonic Flow With Turbulent 

Swept Forward Aft Tails. MSA TM X^ajw! 19™ ""^ " "*""' '"" '"■'•'"= 



12 



40. Inunnor. lUxjor II.; and Siiortmaii. M. loruy: I ffocts of Nose inuDtncss on the 
Static Aerodynamic (;iiara(;teristi<;u of a Cruel ronii-WirMi Mlssilo at M.M.ti Notiihors 
l.')0 lu ?.i\(K NASA IM X-22Uy, 19/1. 

41. Spoaniian, M. I.oroy; and lournitT, Roger II.: Aorodynaiiili: Cluiractorlslit:'. o1" a 
Wiiujloss Manuuveral»lt> Missile With Crucifonii Aft Tall Controls at Mach Numbers 
from !.!)() to 4. (.3. NASA TM X-i'36!), 1971. 

4;'. Coiiett, William A.: Aerodynamic Cliaractori sties at Mach ?M to 4.03 of a 

Crucil'orm Missile Model With Delta Winqs and Trapezoidal -Tail Controls Includiny 
tifects of Winy Location. NASA TM X-23C>4, 1971. 

43. Graves, Lrnald B.: Wind-Tunnel Tests of a Cruciform Low-Aspect- Ratio Winy- 
Controlled Missile at Mach Numbers from 1.7b to 4.64. NASA TM X-P403, 1971. 

44. Trescot, Charles D., Jr.: Lonyitudinal Aerodynamic Characteristics at Mach 
l.GO to 4.63 of a Missile Model fmploying Various Canards and a Trail ing-I'dqe 
flap Control. NASA TM X-2367, 1971. 

4t). fournier, Royer H.; and Spearman, M. Leroy: Aerodynamic Characteristics of a 
Cruciform Missile Configuration With Canard Controls With and Without rin-flared 
Afterbody at Mach Numbers from 1.80 to 4.63. NASA TM X-2456, 1972. 

46. Monta, William >1.; and loster, (iorald V.: Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Wing- 
Control Air-to~Air Missile Configuration at Mach Numbers from 2.00 to 4.62. 

NASA TM X-24a7, 1972. 

47. Spearman, M. Leroy; and lournier, Roger H.: Lffects of Strap-on Roosters on the 
Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Simulated Launch Vehicle at Mach Numbers from 
l.SO to 2.86. NASA IM X-2491, 1972. 

48. Corlett, William A.: Aerodynamic Characteristics at Mach Numbers From 1.60 to 
2.86 of a Current Missile Configuration With Modified Trapezoidal Wing and Tail 
Components. NASA TM X-24b5, 1972. 

49. Corlett, William A.: Aerodynamic Characteristics at Mach Numbers from 0.40 to 
2.86 of a Maneuverable Missile With Cruciform Trapezoidal Wings and Aft Tail 
Controls. NASA TM X-26ai, 1972. 

50. Spearman, M. Leroy; and Collins, Ida K. : Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Swept- 
Wing-Cruise Missile at Mach Numbers from 0.50 to 2.86. NASA TN 0-7069, 1972. 

51. Trescot, Charles 0.; foster, Ocrald V.; and Babb, C. Dona id: lffects of Tin 
IManform on the Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Wingless M^'ssile With Aft 
Cruciform Controls at Mach 1.60, 2.36, and 2.86. NASA TM X-2774, 1973. 

52. Corlett, William A.; and Howell, Dorothy T.: Aerodynamic Characteristics at Mach 
O.dO to 4.63 of Two Cruciform Missile Models, One Having T^-appzoidal Wings With 
Canard Controls and the Other Having Delta Wings With Tail Controls. NASA 

TM X-2780, 1973. 

53. Graves, Lrnald B.;and lou'-nier, Roger II.: Stability and Control Characteristics 

at Mach Numhers from 0.20 to 4.63 of a Cruciform Air-to-Air Missile With Triangular 
Canard Controls and a Trapezoidal Wing. NASA TM X~3070, 1974. 

13 



54. Nichols. Jamos 0.: Analysis and Compilation of Missile Aerodynamic Data. Volume 1 
- Data Presentation and Analysis. NASA CR-2835, 1977. 

55. Burkhalter, John C: Analysis and Compilation of Missile Aerodynamic Data. 
Volume n - Porl'ormance Analysis. NASA CR-2836, 1977. 

56. Spearman, M. Leroy; and Sawyer, Wallace C: Longitudinal Aerodynamic 
Characteristics at Mach Numbers from 1.60 to 2.86 for a I ixed-Span Missile 
With Throe Wing Planforms. NASA TM 74088, 1977. 

57. Monta, William J.: Supersonic Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Sparrow III Type 
Missile Model With Wing Controls and Comparison With Existing Tail-Control 
Results. NASA TM 1078, 1977. 

58. Monta, William J.: Supersonic Aerodynamic Characteristics of an Air-to-Air 
Missile Configuration With Cruciform Wings and In-Line Tail Controls. NASA 
TM X-2666, 1972. 

59. McKinney, Royce L.: Longitudinal Stability and Control Characteristics of an 
Air-to-Air Missile Configuration at Mach Numbers of 2.30 and 4.60 and Angles of 
Attack From -45° to 90°. NASA TM X-846, 1963. 

60. Sawyer, Wallace C; Jackson, Charlie M., Jr.; and Blair, A. B., Jr.: Aerodynamic 
Technologies for the Next Generation of Missiles. Paper presented at the 
AIAA/ADPA Tactical Missile Conference, Gaithersbiirg, Maryland, April 27-28, 1977. 

61. Graves, Ernald B.: Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Monoplanar Missile Concept 
With Bodies of Circular and Elliptical Cross Sections. NASA TM 74079, 1977. 

62. Blair, A. B., Jr.: Wind-Tunnel Investigation at Supersonic Speeds of a Canard- 
Controlled Missile With Fixed and Free-Rolling Tail Fins. NASA TP~1316, 1978. 

63. Hunt, J. L.; Lawing, P. L.; and Cubbage, J. M.: Conceptual Study of Hypersonic 
Airbreathing Missiles. AIAA Paper Number 78-6, Huntsville, Alabama, January 1978. 

64. Hunt, J. L.; Lawing, P. L.; Marcum, D. C: Research Needs of a Hypersonic, 
Airbreathing Lifting Missile Concept. Journal of Aircraft, Volume 16, October 
1979, pp. 666-673. 

65. Dillon, J. L.; Marcum, D. C; Johnston, P. J.; and Hunt, J. L.: Aerodynamic 
and Inlet Characteristics of Several Hypersonic Airbreathing Missile Concepts. 
Journal of Aircraft, Volume 18, April 1981, pp. 231-237. 

66. Hunt, J. L.i Johnston, P. J.; Cubbage, J. M. ; Dillion, J. L.; Richie, C. B.; and 
Marcum, D. C, Jr.: Hypersonic Airbreathing Missile Concepts Under Study at 
Langley. ATAA-82-0316, AIAA 20th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, January 11-14, 1982, 
Orlando, Florida. 

67. Spearman, M. Leroy: Supersonic Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Tail-Control 
Cruciform Maneuverable Missile With and Without Wings. NASA TM 84600, 1983. 



14 



OPlG'^Ai. \ 



OP y 






(}■ 



D 






I 

I/' 



D 



col 

<• 

o \ 

2 \ 



z 
< s 

CD < 

z 

o 



/ 
/ 

/ ^ 

/DC ZD 



/i 

/ I 



/ 
/ 
// 



£ 

I 

ID 
CO 



to 

CO 



y 



< 



D 



O 
!ZD 



\ 



\ 



I 



D 



< 
o 



< 



\ 






I 
I 
I 

1/1 

V 

A 



< 



< 

CD < 
O 



c 
o 

• pm 
t/> 

CO 



0) 



t/) 






0) 



iQ 



OF POOR g^ ^L^T 



CM 




c 
3 



U 
0) 



CO 

o 

4-> 
U 



C\J 






r 






omGimi PACK fi, 

OF POOR QUALITY 



II 






c; c: 



CM 

II c rr\ o 
^ *^ so so 



OH 

a. § 
u. O 






t 



< 



/ 



/ 



/ 



\ 



\ 



\ 



\ 



—I u^ 




cr\ 



\ 



CM 



4-> 



ex 



=3 

as 



CO 

0) 

C7) 



oo 



sQ 



CM 



O 



O 



mk... 



t^^jjmtmagmii 



ORIGINAL Vi^^ 
OF POOR QUAi»»^ 




00 

II 

■ «i 
o 

o 
o 

09 



c 



c 
o 



O 

I 






»3.^ 



-^^^s^^ 




r 



J_1j L 





CD 
O 



oo 




(/> 
cu 
o. 
o 

"a! 

> 
c 
0) 

c 

a. 
o 






> 






0) 










UD 



- -^ o 



•I" 

tj 

*♦- 

0) 

o 



o 






O 



dJfl 






OF pooa 1^1 iM 'I' 



cTb 



n 



^ 






CSJ 




t3 



u 

o 
o 



o 

O 

o 



03 



U CO 

O 

o 

^ ^^ 
(/> Lr> 



0) 

o 
o 



(13 

C 

o 



I 



II 



U 



PffWV. , 



or''r>...'^ '.■•'"■' 



NO 







Q 
O 

II 

'V ► 

• 

(U 
U 

o 

u 

"a 

(X3 

C 
05 
U 



O 



to ^ 
u 

(/) (Q 

*r* 

U CSJ 

QU 
4^ 11 

o 
u 



03 



3 



c 
o 

» 

CO 



^f" POOR QUALITY 




a. 
0) 

u 

C 

o 
u 



Q 

c 
a 
u 



03 



I 



03 

P 

*♦" T3 

u 

(/) 11 
O O 

ro O 



■o 

•r- 

o 



en 

C7> 



fe.?:^;i- 



iiiifiiitfliMiil 



oRr;i'.^ ' 



Of 



p pcrji-i C/.'-V-"' 



Q ^ 



«^'^ 



? 



V 



CO 

M 



t-^! 

J 

I 

'^^ 




o 



o 

o 
u 

•a 
o 



4-» 

■i 



o 

to 



o 



0) 

SI 

C7> 



O 



^m'"""" 



"^■---^ 



(jV i 



r 



I 
I 




-->• 




S 



LTV 



r I J i Lj I I I I L 



ITS 



cr\ 



CNJ 



it 

to 

4-* 



tj 

0) 



0) 
I 



(U 



o o 

CD 



I I I I I I I I I I, 



o 






iO 



O 



o 



X 






OR! 
OF i' 



'if 



JO 
II 



S < 










o 

4J 



u 

> 

c 



CM 



CD 



CD 



CD 
CM 



"en 






(O 



:j 



^f' POOR QuALni 




CO 
00 



Id 




o 

> 




O 

c 

o 
o 

0) 



CO 



0) 



JUI 






OF POOn (.o.^Ui i 



en 




o 

CD 



40 



o 
u 

is: 
o 



o 

CM 








f* 


•r-l * 




t-~« 


3= 




O 






4-* 








«. 






















' 






1 


- 




1 1 






1 






1 f 


* 




1 1 






1 


flu 














L- 


-Ji 





o ^ 




(U 
T3 



e 






Ci 



00 

CVI 



o 

o 
u 



c: 
a 
u 

x: 
o 




o 
a 


► 


" o 
^ II II 

O 

4-i» lOtO 


•% ^ "^ 

:^ 3: 4^ 




ii 




o 



e 



o 



O 



0) 



C7) 
X3 



J^ 



d 



OF POOR QUM-..^ 




o 
t 

Q 
O 
I 

cn 



<oo 


1 


jf> 


:» 


• 


O C>J 


r— 


■o 


fO 


c 




w 


(. 




O i^ 


*♦- r-*. 




• 


(/) 


rH 


o 




»r- 


n 


^ 




t?) s 


'P- 




u 


A 


Q) 





4J 


O 


O 




*0 


It 


&. 




<0 


.<>. 


x; 




u 






t 


f— » 


4-> 


03 


Cu 


C 


CU 


•p" 


u 


■o 


c 


3 


o 


4-> 


o 






O] 




c 




o 





to 



"^f 



cu 



id 



ORlGlNAt PjV:- - 
OF POORQ^J'^^'^^ 






O 
U 

C 
O 

I 

c 



3 



I 

x: 

•r- 



CO ^ 

u 
•I- II 

'f— 
4^ O 

u 

(O II 

5 '^■ 
u 



no a. 

c <v 

.1- u 

=J o 

+J o 

o 



^ 



QJ 



3 
C3D 



^ 



OF POUK Qi}/\i{,y 




I/) 

cu 

(U 
ex 
if) 

u 

11— 

c 

0) 

1^ 

u 

•r- 
I/) 

<y 

o 

C 
fO 

x: 
o 

0^ 
B 
O 
6t 
I 
O) 

c: 



o 

C 

o 
u 



u 



CD 






2&£d!:2i 



V :> 



Sr^ 1^/^^^^ 




W 



0^ 

o 

< 
a: 

on 
o 

3= 
CO 




o 

o 
o 



t/) 



0) 

</) 

3 

o 
I 

00 






O) 



1/ 






< 



^ 






"INO 





0) 

u 

c 
o 
u 



CO 



CD 
</) 



(O 



o 




1~ 



oo 






O 
•r— 

U 

a> 

4-> 

o 

x: 
o 



•r- 

o 



o> 






o 



o 






op*^!^•^^ ^ ^ Iff 




r 



o 



o 



c 
o 
u 



u> 
E 
o 

o 
(/) 
c 

0) 

I 

o 
:3